See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/286363387

Success factors of theme parks - An exploratory study

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

58 34,146

2 authors:

Birgit Pikkemaat Markus Schuckert

University of Innsbruck University of New Hampshire
89 PUBLICATIONS   1,615 CITATIONS    150 PUBLICATIONS   2,776 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

One-to-One WebMarketing in der Reisebranche View project

MOOC SHTM001x View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Markus Schuckert on 22 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Birgit Pikkemaat and Markus Schuckert

Success factors of theme

parks - An exploratory
study
Abstract Theme parks are important products for the leisure and tourism industry but the analysis of their
critical success factors seems to be a neglected area in leisure and tourism research. Most authors
agree that authenticity as well as the staging of experiences is a main factor influencing consum-
er's decision to buy a leisure or tourism product. Thus, this paper discusses authenticity and the
staging of experiences as critical success factors for the management of theme parks. Empirical data
gathered from personal interviews with theme park managers in Austria, Germany and Switzer-
land reveal the assumption that the literature is not in line with the critical success factors of
theme park management. The paper concludes by outlining future research on success factors of
theme parks as well as implications for their management.
Keywords:
theme parks; critical success factors; authenticity; staging experiences

Introduction
Today’s so called ‘experience-generation’ has, on the one side, a tendency to experi-
ence-intensity and life-hype as well as a tendency to impulsive and fast experiences
(Pine & Gilmore, 1999; Horx, 2002; Grötsch, 2006). On the other side, tourists
increasingly search for calmness, authenticity and ‘soft’ tourism experiences such as
trekking, mountain-hiking, ocean-cruising or beach relaxation (Wang, 1999; Goulding,
2000; Taylor, 2001; Olsen, 2002). As rapid changes in the business environment take
place, the tourism supply side is faced with new challenges: consumers search for multi-
optional offers and experiences which are delivered in an exciting but also very com-
fortable and more and more authentic atmosphere (Opaschowski, 2000; Foot, 2002;
Reiter, 2004).
Especially within mature markets, theme parks in its various forms have been viewed as
central means to fulfill new leisure and tourism trends: they offer more quality for less,
they are safe and clean, their offers are multi-optional and time-saving as well as
emotional and sense giving and their visitation also meets the needs of soft individual-
ism (Bieger, Dreier & Frey, 2002). Thus, they have become favorite modes of mass

Birgit Pikkemaat, PhD, Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, Innsbruck
University, School of Management, Innsbruck, Austria
Email: birgit.pikkemaat@uibk.ac.at
Markus Schuckert, Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, Innsbruck University,
School of Management, Innsbruck, Austria
Email: markus.schuckert@uibk.ac.at

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208 UDC: 338.48-53:791.75

197
 entertainment all over the world (Walsh-Heron & Stevens, 1990; Swarbrooke, 1995;
Milman, 2001). Due to this expansion issues which affect the construction, operation
and the success of theme parks have been neglected (Bieger, 2001; Prideaux, 2002).
Thus, the aim of this paper is to analyze success factors for the management of theme
parks: which factors are important for the management and the success of theme parks?
Is consumers’ increasing demand for authenticity and experiences taken into account by
the theme park management? Hence, this paper is organized in several parts. First, the
concept of authenticity and its role within new tourism behavior is discussed. Second,
the staging of experiences as a main determinant of theme parks is analyzed. Third, the
concept of theme parks and its success factors are presented. In the empirical part of
the paper the result of the interviews are presented and compared to the theoretical
debate within tourism and leisure research. Furthermore the result are discussed and
possible gaps discovered between management perception and conceptual discussions.
The paper concludes with some policy implications for the management of theme parks
and by outlining future research questions for its management and development.

Authenticity As the concept of authenticity seems to be still ‘a fertile idea in the debates about tourist
motivation and experiences’ (Olsen, 2002, p. 159) authors try to explain that in this
context for two reasons: first, authenticity is often claimed as one of the major trends in
new tourism and consumer behavior and second, it is often discussed in contrast to
pure artificial theme parks.
Three decades ago MacCannell (1973) introduced the concept of authenticity to socio-
logical studies of tourist’s motivations. He argued that tourists are damned to consume
staged authenticity although they are looking for real authenticity. Authenticity as a
feature has been characterized as something that is genuine as opposed to something
simulated or forged (Golomb, 1995). This explains why the term was linked in his early
usage closely to museums or heritage sites and has been extended at a later date to
tourism experiences (Goulding, 2000). Its dialectic between object and subject, there
and here, then and now is fundamental to the concept of authenticity (Taylor, 2001).
Cohen (1988) suggested treating authenticity as a matter of negotiation because it is
based on individuals’ knowledge about the object, education, previous experiences,
images, and tourists’ self concept such as imagination, beliefs, views, cultural back-
ground and social ties. The latter is also stressed by Olsen (2002): ‘If people’s experi-
ence of being tourist is what keeps them away from what they regard as authentic
experiences, the analysis has to pay attention to how people are situated in social
context when they label experiences authentic or not’ (Olsen, 2002, p. 161). Most
research on authenticity is focused on the analysis of individuals which try ‘being
authentic’ (Cohen, 1988; Wang, 1999; Steiner & Reisinger, 2006). This existential
authenticity seems to be the more customer driven and dynamic concept in opposite to
the authenticity referring to objects.
For example in the past, mass tourists expected to be insulated from authentic experi-
ences of both alien cultures and tourism hassles by an ‘environmental bubble’ such as
staying in western- style hotels in non-western countries or participating in organized
tours rather than swarming out on their own (Steiner & Reisinger, 2006, p. 312).
Today it seems that also mass tourism can be linked to authenticity as the quest for
authenticity does not necessarily require a search for the exotic, undiscovered and
primitive. In contrast, even the most banal depthless aspects of tourism have the
potential to facilitate existential authenticity (Taylor, 2001). Consumers´ decision to

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

198
 buy or not to buy is based on how real they perceive the products, services or experi-
ences (Yeoman, Brass & McMahon-Beattie, 2007). Therefore, it might be worthwhile
for managers of theme parks as well as of other industries to consider the authenticity
potential of their products and services more in detail.
Concluding the authenticity discussion with MacCannell’s (1973) work it becomes
obvious that theme parks are able to fulfill tourists need for authenticity. Modern
tourists are alienated and seek authenticity as a form of personal fulfillment. In addition,
tourists have a strong need to escape to other zones, times or places as a result of
alienation from everyday experiences (MacCannell, 1973). Considering these two
aspects of authenticity theme parks seem to be able to deliver both: personal fulfillment
and escape to other places. As tourists search for personal fulfillment in theme parks
another important factor arises: tourist’s experiences in theme parks. The concept and
discussion of how to stage successful customer’s experiences will be addressed next.

Experiences The experience value of a product is a dominant factor influencing consumers’ motiva-
tion to buy a product. In this context the customer searches for emotional experiences
such as fun, happening, adventure or excitement. In general, experiences take place
whenever a company or a destination decides to use services as the stage and goods as
props to engage an individual whereby memorability is the most important characteris-
tic of experiences: ‘While commodities are fungible, goods tangible and services
intangible, experiences are memorable’ (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, p. 11). In order to
transform the consumers’ consumption of ordinary goods and services into ‘a memora-
ble experience’, they have to be produced and marketed with the help of psychological
insights which help to heighten the experiential character of consumer activities. For
properly staging experiences psychological knowledge with respect to such phenomena
as brain scripts, inferential beliefs, sentence framing and media literacy is required to
evoke the desired associations, emotions or memories. E.g. media literacy is employed
to create a play with human perception. The spectator wants to be tricked
perceptionally as is the case with magicians. We let ourselves be immersed in illusions,
which again can be created through particular materials, lighting or architectural design
(Mikunda, 1997).

The latter is used for the most successful theme park within the Alpine area of Tyrol
and the fifth most successful of Austria: Swarovski’s Crystal World. This theme park
hosted more than 725.000 visitors in 2004 (TourMis, 2006) and is located nearby the
authentic cut crystal production in Wattens, Tyrol (Austria). Swarovski is the world’s
leading manufacturer of cut crystal and built together with the famous Viennese multi-
media artist André Heller this theme park which immerses illusions by telling visual
stories for adults. In 2003 they had a decrease of visitors for the first time. As a result
many attraction points within the theme park were redesigned and the capacity of the
whole theme park was expanded in 2004.
Following once more Pine and Gilmore’s path breaking work on the experience
economy four possibilities are reported as to how consumers can become involved or
engaged in experiences (Pine & Gilmore, 1999, p. 30). The combination of the dimen-
sion ‘consumer participation’ with the dimension ‘environmental relationship’ defines
the four ‘realms’ of an experience: entertainment, education, escape and estheticism.
The passive participation of consumers is characterized by tourists who do not directly
affect or influence the performance, e.g. when listening to an opera. In the case of

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

199
 active participation, consumers personally affect or influence the performance, e.g.
when skiing. The environmental relationship refers to the distinction whether the
experience ‘goes into’ the tourist (absorption) or the tourist ‘goes into’ the experience
(immersion): watching TV seems to be an example for absorption whereas playing a
virtual reality game seems to be more an immersion experience (Pine & Gilmore,
1999).

For the case of entertainment and theme parks individuals usually absorb the environ-
ment and take a passive part. This neither may be valid for all kinds of theme parks nor
for all spheres of a specific theme park. E.g. the interactive brand park ‘Ravensburger
Spieleland’ (www.ravensburger.de/spielelandL/ 2007) which is a modern brand park in
Germany for children from two to twelve years delivers also space for immersion
experiences, such as boat tours on a lake or visiting animals on a farm. Today’s suc-
cessful theme parks seem to be able to fulfill a wide range of experiences. Per definition
theme parks offer an escape from every day’s life and they entertain tourists. Sometimes
they educate them and deliver an esthetic attraction, such as Autostadt Wolfsburg
(www.autostadt.de/portal/site/www/ 2007) which offers educational information about
cars in an esthetic atmosphere.

According to Hudson (2006) experiences are a key innovation in today’s business

across a variety of industries from health care to automobiles. Moreover, a recent study
found that the number one ranked ‘most memorable experience’ for customers is in
connection with vacation (Hudson, 2006, p. 138). The demand for leisure and tourism
products which are able to engage customers’ senses, to stimulate minds, to deliver
unique moments or to interact with customers in an emotional, physical, spiritual or
intellectual setting seems increasing. E.g. the demand for spa or so called ‘wellness’
products in the Alpine part of Austria is still growing but there seems to be a division of
the market: on the one hand customers search emotional, high quality and more selfness
than wellness products delivering authentic experiences in esthetic surroundings in very
individual luxury hotels. On the other hand, standardized spa (wellness) products
become part of many middle class hotels. Even in the spa (wellness) sector it has
become of utmost importance to deliver customers extra-ordinary experiences which
include both, body consciousness and mind awareness (Horx, 2002).

The latter brings us to another aspect discussing experiences within the leisure industry:
experiences should offer not only fun and pleasure but also increasingly a clue, a mes-
sage or sense (Grötsch, 2006). It seems as the future belongs to quick experiences, to
leisure at the doorstep or to instant leisure, following the slogan: ‘we do it shorter and
shorter, but more often’. Consequently, the attractiveness of indoor entertainment and
theme parks will not decline as long as they are located nearby populated areas and the
demand for experiences will accumulate. Not surprisingly the importance of invested
time grows for postmodern customers and short trips seem to promise a higher density
of experiences and as a result a higher experience quality. Furthermore, the risk of
potential disappointment is reduced in comparison to a two weeks sun and beach
holiday (Reiter, 2004, p. 177).

Summarizing the discussion so far it can be assumed that theme parks as well as other
branches have to face a new complexity of consumerism. Customers are seeking
authenticity as a form of personal fulfillment and unique emotional quick experiences
including meanings but at the same time look for comfort, convenience and choice of
everyday life to which they have become accustomed in the past. This movement to

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

200
 self-actualization is a search for deeper meaning; it is a fulfillment of moving beyond
goods and services to experiences (Yeoman, Brass & McMahon-Beattie, 2007). Before
the authors will empirically evaluate theme parks in terms of success factors the concept
of theme parks will be stated briefly.

Theme parks
Following Camp (1997) ‘a theme park can be defined as being an outdoor attraction
which combines rides, attractions and shows; as being designed around a central theme
or group of themes; and as being charging a pay-one-price admission fee to visitors’
(Page, 2000, p. 227). According to the International Association of Amusement Parks
and Attractions ‘a theme park is an amusement park that has themed attractions, be it
food, costumes, entertainment, retail stores and/or rides’ (Wong & Cheung, 1999, p.
320). Similar an attraction has been described as a ‘designated permanent resource
which is controlled and managed for the enjoyment, amusement, entertainment, and
education of the visiting public’ (Middleton, 1989, p. 229). What seems to distinguish
theme parks from other amusement parks or from attractions is a core theme of the
park which runs through all or many park attractions. The theme becomes the main
part of the experience. Although theme parks were thought of offering visitors one
major theme, today most of them contain multi-themes in terms of different attraction
points or themed areas (Wong & Cheung, 1999).

Analyzing the concept of theme parks from a positivist perspective neglecting thereby
consciously the more critical works on theme parks (‘Diznification’) it seems to be a
neglected area in tourism research. Some works have been done on the wider concept
of visitor attractions (Swarbrooke, 1995; Stevens, 2000; Walsh-Heron & Steven, 2000;
Bieger, 2001, Fyall et al. 2003) but until today only a handful studies have been carried
out on theme parks (McClung, 1991; Fodness & Milner, 1992; Kau, 1993; Wong &
Cheung, 1999; Milman, 2001; Johns & Gyimothy, 2002). In particular since the early
nineties the research interest in theme parks decreases. Researching for theme park
related papers e.g. in the ‘Tourism Management’ journal, the most recent paper has
been published here in 2003 (Bigné, Andreu & Gnoth, 2003) while three papers have
been published in the early 90ies (McClung, 1991; Fodness & Milner, 1992; Kau, 1993)
and one paper before 1990 (Moutinho, 1988). In sum only five academic papers
appeared and the most recent one (Bigné, Andreu & Gnoth, 2003) is focused on visitor
emotions in theme parks lacking a conceptual framework or theorizing of theme parks.

Most research carried out on theme parks is concentrated on visitors’ profiles and
market segmentation (Moutinho, 1988; McClung, 1991; Fodness & Milner, 1992; Kau,
1993; Johns & Gyimothy, 2002; Bigné, Andreu & Gnoth, 2003) while very few major
research works have investigated the management of theme parks. The authors found
only one paper without empirical research which lists factors for failure. According to
Penz & Rösch (2004) these are the following: a gap of or not appropriate theming,
unspectacular attractions, insufficient gastronomy, poorly capacity management, con-
trary target markets, bad services and qualities, false pricing, not appropriate public
relations and marketing strategies. One study has been found which analyzes theme
parks from a management perspective. Milman (2001) interviewed 122 North Ameri-
can attraction and theme park managers about theme parks future from a management
perspective. The respondents predicted that the family market will remain the core of
the industry, attractions will become more service orientated and customers will require
more active than passive interaction. All other works are concentrated on customers
view and the reasons to choose a specific theme park. For example, McClung (1991)

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

201
 found that the type of the theme is one of the factors affecting tourists’ preferences for
theme parks. More in detail respondents indicated four important influencing factors in
their consideration of whether or not to attend a theme park: climate, preference for
theme parks, children’s desire to attend and cost. His results suggest that multi segmen-
tation strategies which combine desired themes and attractions are essential for com-
petitive attractiveness. The necessity to combine visitor’s preferences for themes with
specified attractions is also underlined by Wong & Cheung (1999).
No doubt, theme parks are important impulses for the leisure and tourism industry and
its development (Middleton, 1989; Stevens, 2000; Milman, 2001). For the wealth of an
area and its economic development theme parks are of utmost importance.

Table 1
SUCCESS FACTORS OF THEME PARKS ACCORDING TO THE LITERATURE
Success factors of theme parks Literature
Multivarious range of options and attractions: Theme parks have Bigné et al., 2005
to offer a wide range of attractions and possibilities which meet Kagelmann, 2004
the requirements and desires of new multi-optional customers. Stevens, 2000
Uniqueness: The offered product and set of experiences and Prideaux, 2002
attractions should be clearly defined to keep uniqueness against Swarbrooke, 1995
competitors and focus on selected segments of customers.
Innovation: A continuing process of innovation and redesign Prideaux, 2002
hedges success against changing patterns of customer behavior Milman, 2001
and fading customer loyalty. Opaschowski, 2000
Continuity/Theming: The whole product including all activities Wong & Cheung, 1999
and designs should be themed. Customers need to find a clearly Goronzy, 2004
Environmental integration: Theme parks have to be integrated Kagelmann, 2004
well into the economical, social and ecological environment of Bieger, 2001
their hosting destination. The local population should be Garrod, 2003
Capacity and queue management: The management of the
capacity during peak and off-peak times and seasonal variations
Goulding, 2003
in demand are a mayor factor for success and customer
satisfaction.
Functionality and infrastructure: Here one-stop solutions have to
Bieger et al., 2002
be brought up.
Weather independency: All weather operations ensure a
continuous business and declutch service from environmental Bachleitner, 1998
factors.
Escape/Imagination: Visitors want to get away from every day life Goronzy, 2004
and expect a temporarily change by the artificial and illus ional Opaschowski, 2000
Emotions: Theme parks need to tell a story and have to impart Grötsch, 2006
impressions and emotions as persuasive as possible with that. Reiter, 2004
Involvement/Interactivity: With an increasing involvement and
Bigné, Andreu & Gnoth, 2003
interactivity of the customer the surplus (value added) rise
Milman, 2001
strongly for customers.
Branding: A corporate branding enables theme parks to create a Penz & Rösch, 2004
good image, increase security, trust and recognition to attract Hennings, 2000
customers more efficiently. Middleton, 1989
Quality: Customers expect a high level of quality along all areas of Penz & Rösch, 2004
the theme park. Middelton, 1989
Safety and security: Users expect adventures and experiences in
Bieger, Dreier & Frey, 2002
an artificial environment at a calculable risk.
Design: The design has to meet customers’ requirements by Wong & Cheung, 1999
illustrating the storyboard precisely taking architectural, Mikunda, 1997

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

202
 Following Bieger (2001) the network effect of attractions should be examined as
customer’s value of an attraction is often increased by other attractions within the same
area. Therefore, it might be appropriate to support management strategies which
address both, tourists and locals, as the community support and the supporting infra-
structure in the surrounding peripheral area are two important determinants for the
success of an attraction (Swarbrooke, 1995; Prideaux, 2002).

According to a literature review the most important factors influencing the success of
theme parks are summarized in the following Table 1. Every success factor has at least
been mentioned once in the literature although the table is not exhaustive. Factors
applying on general management matters, such as strategy, finance, human resource
management are knowingly excluded as they seem to be too diversified from one park
to another to compare. They might have caused a distortion of the results.
Although Table 1 is not exhaustive it lists some important success factors for the
management of theme parks discussed in literature. Remarkably neither authenticity nor
the staging of memorable experiences was discussed so far in a theme park context.

Next, these success factors will be empirically analyzed for its relevance in selected
theme parks in Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

Empirical
METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE
study
Since these factors seem to influence the success of theme parks it is important to
ascertain more accurately what theme park managers’ preferences in terms of success
factors. For this purpose the importance of the success factors listed in Table 1 have
been empirically evaluated by carrying our personal interviews with theme park manag-
ers in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Theme park managers were asked to rank the
15 success factors from Table 1 on a scale from 10 (very important) to 1 (very unim-
portant). In addition managers were asked to rank authenticity and the staging of
experiences as success factors for theme parks using the same scale. Following this
procedure it was possible to get a ranking of the success factors of theme parks. To
verify the list of success factors the following open question was raised at the end of
each interview: Which factors are important for failure of theme parks and their
concepts?

Theme park managers were interviewed by telephone during May and June 2006. In
sum more than 50% of all theme park managers were contacted of a total of counted 20
theme parks in Austria, 52 in Germany and 2 in Switzerland. Finally, from 40 con-
tacted theme park managers 20 were willing to carry out the telephone interview which
took between up to 20 minutes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Different to the literature view discussed above, the study shows overall interesting
results. In the following Figure 1 the ranking of the success factors done by theme park
managers is presented.

In the leading cluster with an average value of 9.0 out of 10 the factors ‘quality’ and
‘safety and security’ were rated highest. At the top rank the delivered quality to the
customers leads with 9.0 and safety and security which means having fun and entertain-
ment at a calculable risk hold 8.9.

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

203
 Figure 1
RANKING OF SUCCESS FACTORS

The interviewees noted that ‘safety and security’ has to be considered as a basis factor
of course, but the 8.9 contributes to the trade off between absolutely no risk and
adventure or entertainment. The second cluster of success factors contains a mix
between hardware and software based arguments with an average rated importance of
8.6. This group contains the ‘multivarious ranges of options and attractions’ and the
imparting of ‘impressions and emotions’ (both 8.6). Interestingly these points might be
subsumed as the functional core concept of a theme park on the one hand hardware-
sided by the number of attractions and software-sided by emotioning. Close to these
points the factor of ‘functionality and infrastructure’ of the theme park was rated (8.4).
Here, the arrangement and number of hardware seems to be important. The factor of
‘branding’ is also isolated and seen as quite important with a value of 8.2 still above the
mean value (7.9). All interviewees found branding an important point but a difference
was discovered between parks where the concept is linked to a strong product brand for
e. g. toys such as Lego or Playmobil and parks with no supporting products or product
brand. Managers of the latter found branding (8.2) more important than the former
(7.7). So, branding seems to be an issue especially for parks with no relation to a
product brand name. A third group of success factors meets the mean value with 7.9.
These are ‘innovations’ (8.0), ‘uniqueness’ (7.95), ‘weather independency’ (7.95) and
TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION
Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

204
 the ‘involvement and interactivity’ of visitors (7.9). The fourth group of success factors
were rated below the mean value with (7.7). This group contains clearly software
related factors like ‘escape and imagination’, ‘design’ and ‘experience’ (all 7.7) and
seems not that important. Further more, a fifth group containing the factors ‘capacity
and queue management’ and ‘authenticity’ (both 7.6) was rated below the mean, too.
Interestingly the postulated concepts like the staging of experiences and authenticity
were relatively low rated with 7.7 and 7.6 respectively. The interviewees seem here to
be more hardware minded than relying on software oriented factors discussed in the
sections above. The factor of a consisting storyboard (‘continuity/theming’) was consid-
ered as not that important (7.3) as well as the factor of the ‘environmental integration’
(6.2) rated behind. Here it might be seen as confirmed that theme parks which are
more or less artificial bubbles, may interact with their environment but need not crucial
to do so.
The open question for reasons of failing theme parks delivered also very interesting
outcomes while these answers seem to be more related to traditional management issues
like the four p´s place, price, product and promotion in addition with finance and
human resource management. The results are presented in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2
SELECTED FLOP FACTORS OF THEME PARKS

One of the most mentioned arguments were that failing theme parks do not meet and
dissatisfy customers’ expectations. This means e.g. that the product delivered gaps the
description of the product, the product misses authenticity, credibility experience and
adventure, the customer gets bored and misses a certain wow-factor and the park lacks
of repetitive visits. As important as the right service to customers’ expectations were
valued marketing issues in general. Failing parks do miss the right and appropriate
marketing concept, a wrong or non existent branding, wrong defined target groups and
a lack of mouth-to-mouth propaganda. As a third point, the wrong location of the park
was named as a flop factor. A wrong location implies also the missing catchment area as
well as underdeveloped or missing transport connection and infrastructure. The inter-
viewees did consider not appropriate pricing as a fourth point of failure. Here, the

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

205
 price-quality ratio might dissatisfy customers as well as additional costs e.g. for cater-
ing, parking etc. during a visit. Furthermore the price worthiness of the entertainment
has to be clear for the (potential) customer. As a fifth case of a cluster of arguments for
failed theme park concepts were named: poor basic factors, missing innovations and a
distressed concept of financing and investment policy. Here at first and like with other
public infrastructure or transportation, theme parks might fail, if basic requirements
like quality, safety, cleanliness and reliability are defective or missing. In addition poor
or missing service was also mentioned here. Secondly wrong investments and missing
innovations were claimed as critical issues, which are interdependent at many times.

Interviewees stated that parks enter a negative innovation cycle and face shortening life
cycles of innovations, leading to an increasing and accelerating demand of investments
into new attractions. Furthermore, an unbalanced short term cash management,
stressed by unstable returns, seasonality and trends could lead many parks into financial
troubles. Close to these points the interviewed theme park managers named here
missing entrepreneurial abilities and a lack of know how as potential source of break-
downs. Here especially wrong ideas, ordinary or end-of-the pier concepts and a missing
uniqueness were mentioned as well as a mistaken market positioning, poor manage-
ment abilities, low operating experience and the lack of industry know-how. Last and
least poor human resource management, no team spirit, a high fluctuation and a bad
service attitude were also claimed for no-go factors.

It seems that theme park managers do see more management related issues as a poten-
tial source of unsuccessfulness than the lack of soft factors. Surprisingly new consumer
behaviour concepts like authenticity and experience were rated as not critical for
success. Of course, soft factors are found important, but the hard infrastructural and
managerial factors seem to be more present within management board rooms. Out of
the management point of view creativity, staging, good ideas and good story telling
seem does not to cover poor managerial abilities, entrepreneurship on the on hand and
missing customer attention on the other. Here, a gap between the discussion in leisure
and tourism research and the managerial everyday life might still persistent.

Conclusion The above observations directly lead to future research agendas concerning the evalua-
tion of critical success factors in theme parks. Firstly, as theme park literature is
missing a profound theoretical framework for analyzing success factors of theme parks,
future research should empirically investigate the various factors influencing the success
or the failure of theme parks. As the study shows success factors arise which are few
discussed in theme park literature. A comprehensive analysis seems to be necessary: to
investigate the critical success factors of theme parks management in terms of its
management, its product bundle, its price, its place and its customers. Second, the
above presented results must be interpreted with caution (i.e. they are neither adequate
to be generalized for all kinds, business models or concepts of theme parks nor for
destinations with a totally other cultural management background), future research
should systematically foster new sampling and data gathering techniques to sketch
representative critical success factors for various kind of theme parks in different
destinations. Third, it might be more fruitful to carry out empirical studies in theme
parks which are focussed on a similar theme or product bundle. Fourth, customers’
evaluation of the product bundle of theme parks still lacks empirical research.
Nevertheless, the conclusion can be drawn that theme park managers are aware of
many factors which do have a strong impact on the business. Surprisingly authenticity
and the staging of experiences are still untended issues and are identified poorly as

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

206
 success factors in literature. Neither the literature nor the data allowed investigating
more in detail customers’ evaluation of staging experiences and authenticity in theme
parks.

For the future it can be stated, that theme parks at least within Austria, Germany and
Switzerland and abroad has to face many challenges. As such for example, fluctuation in
demand has to be brought up. Here, a success driver will be to shorten ‘downtimes’
between peak periods and flatten seasonality impacts (Goulding, 2003). Another
important area of success factors of theme parks and attractions is the specific manage-
ment and it has to become much more important to the operation companies than
today. Once more this study has shown that especially quality management as well as
queue and capacity management are underdeveloped fields in the theme park industry
(Garrod, 2003; Penz & Rösch, 2004).
On the one hand, theme park management recognizes, that a permanent process of
developing and implementing innovations (hardware) is a highly important key factor
for attracting new customers and keep them returning at a steady flow. On the other
hand, the management of theme parks just begins to discover that the consignment of
experiences and emotions (software) leads the way to the development of new markets
and segments as well as linking the available customers to the specific theme parks.
Here, more potential is still ahead.

References Bieger, T. (2001). Von der Unternehmensperspektive zur Destinationsperspektive – integrierte

strategische Planung für Erlebniswelten. In H. H. Hinterhuber, H. Pechlaner & K. Matzler (eds.),
IndustrieErlebnisWelten (pp. 21-34). Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Bieger, T., Dreier, P. & Frey, M. (2002). Anforderungen an Attraktionspunkte im internationalen Sight-
Seeing Tourismus – Resultate einer explorativen Delphi-Studie. St. Gallen: Universität St.
Gallen. Unpublished.
Bigné, J. E., Andreu, L. & Gnoth, J. (2003). The theme park experience An analysis of pleasure, arousal
and satisfaction. Tourism Management, 26(6), 833-844.
Cohen, E. (1988). Authenticity and Commodiziation. Annals of Tourism Research, 15(3), 371-386.
Foot, D. K. (2002). Leisure Futures: A Change in Demography? In K. Weiermair & C. Mathies (eds.), The
tourism and leisure industry (pp. 21-33). New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Fodness, D. D. & Milner, L. M. (1992). A perceptual mapping approach to theme park visitor segmenta-
tion: A cross cultural segmentation. Tourism Management, 13(1), 95-101.
Fyall A., Garrod B. & Leask A. (eds.) (2003). Managing Visitor Attractions – New Directions. Amster-
dam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Garrod, B. (2003). Managing visitor impacts. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod & A. Leask (eds.), Managing Visitor
Attractions – New Directions (pp. 124-139). Amsterdam: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Golomb, J. (1995). In Search of Authenticity. London: Routledge.
Goronzy, F. (2004). Erlebniszoos: das Tier als Erlebnis. In H. J. Kagelmann, R. Bachleitner & M. Rieder
(eds.), Erlebniswelten – Zum Erlebnisboom in der Postmoderne (pp. 29-38). München: Profil.
Goulding, C. (2000). The commodification of the past, postmodern pastiche, and the search for
authentic experiences at contemporary heritage attractions. European Journal of Marketing,
37(7), 835-853.
Goulding, P. (2003). Seasonality: the perennial challenge for visitor attractions. In A. Fyall, B. Garrod &
A. Leasl (eds.), Managing Visitor Attractions – New Directions (pp. 140-158). Amsterdam:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Grötsch, K. (2006). Aha – ein Erlebnis! Über Erlebnisinszenierung und Emotionmanagement. In K.
Weiermair & A. Brunner-Sperdin (eds.), Erlebnisinszenierung im Tourismus (pp. 49-79). Berlin:
Erich Schmidt.
Horx, M. (2002). Die acht Sphären der Zukunft - Ein Wegweiser in die Kultur des 21. Jahrhunderts.
Wien: Amalthea-Signum.
Hennings, G. (2000). Erlebnis- und Konsumwelten: Steuerungsfaktoren – Akteure – Planung. In A.
Steinecke (ed.), Erlebnis- und Konsumwelten (pp. 55-75). München: Oldenbourg.

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

207
 Hudson S. (2006). Creating memorable alpine winter experiences. In Weiermair K. and Brunner-
Sperdin A. (eds.) Erlebnisinszenierung im Tourismus, Berlin: Erich Schmidt. 137-151.
Johns, N. & Gyimóthy, S. (2002). Mythologies of a theme park: An icon of modern family life. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 8(4), 320-331.
Kagelmann, H. J. (2004). Themenparks. In H. J. Kagelmann, R. Bachleitner & M. Rieder (eds.),
Erlebniswelten – Zum Erlebnisboom in der Postmoderne (pp. 160-180). München: Profil Verlag.
Kau, A.-K. (1993). Evaluating the effectiveness of a new theme park: a cross-cultural comparison.
Tourism Management, 14(3), 202-210.
McClung, G. W. (1991). Theme park selection: Factors influencing attendance. Tourism Management,
12(2), 132-140.
MacCannell, D. (1973). Staged authenticity: arrangements of social space in tourist settings. American
Journal of Sociology, 79(3), 589-603.
Middleton, V.T.C. (1989). Visitor Attractions: Marketing Implications for Attractions. Tourism Manage-
ment, 10(3), 229-232.
Milman, A. (2001). The Future of Theme Parks and Attraction Industry: A Management Perspective.
Journal of Travel Research, 40( November), 139-147.
Mikunda, C. (1997). Der verbotene Ort oder die inszenierte Verführung. Düsseldorf: Econ..
Moutinho, L. (1988). Amusement park visitor behaviour – Scottish attitudes. Tourism Management,
9(4), 291-300.
Olsen, K. (2002). Authenticity as a concept in tourism research. Tourist Studies, 2(2), 159-182.
Opaschowski, H. W. (2000). Kathedralen des 21. Jahrhunderts. Hamburg: Germa Press.
Page, S. (2000). Theme parks. In C. Ryan, & S. Page (eds.), Tourism Management (pp. 227-232).
Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Penz, O. & Rösch, S. (2004). Misserfolge und Scheitern von Erlebniswelten. In: H. J. Kagelmann, R.
Bachleitner & M. Rieder (eds.), Erlebniswelten – Zum Erlebnisboom in der Postmoderne (pp. 39-
46). München: Profil.
Pine, J. B. & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The Experience Economy. Boston (Mass): Harvard Business School
Press..
Prideaux, B. (2002). Building Visitor Attractions in Peripheral Areas – Can Uniqueness overcome
Isolation to produce Viability? International Journal of Tourism Research, 4(5), 379-389.
Reiter, A. (2004). The hybrid consumer of leisure squeezed between fun maximization, chill out, and the
radical search for inner values. In K. Weiermair & C. Mathies (eds.), The tourism and leisure
industry (pp. 173-180). New York: The Haworth Hospitality Press.
Steiner, C. J. & Reisinger, Y. (2006). Understanding existential authenticity. Annals of Tourism Re-
search, 33(2), 299-318.
Stevens, T. (2000). Attractions – The Future of Visitor Attractions. Travel and Tourism Analyst, 1, 61-
85.
Swarbrooke, J. (1995). The development and management of visitor attractions. Oxford: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Taylor, J. (2001). Authenticity and Sincerity in Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 28(1), 7-26.
TourMis, (2006). Sehenswürdigkeiten. Retreived April 7, 2006, from: http://tourmis.wu-wien.ac.at/cgi-
bin/tmintro.pl.
Walsh-Heron, J. & Stevens, T. (1990). The Management of Visitor Attractions and Events. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Wang, N. (1999). Rethinking Authenticity in Tourism Experiences. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2),
349-370.
Wong, K. K. F. & Cheung, P. W. Y. (1999). Strategic theming in theme park marketing. Journal of
Vacation Marketing, 5(4), 319-332.
www.autostadt.de/portal/site/www/ (Retreived June 11, 2007)
www.ravensburger.de/spielelandL/ (Retreived June 11, 2007)
Yeoman, I., Brass, D. & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Current issues in tourism: The authentic tourist.
Tourism Management, 28, 1128-1138.

Submitted: 12/15/2006
Accepted: 02/15/2007

TOURISM PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION

Vol. 55 No 2/ 2007/ 197-208
B. Pikkemaat and M. Schuckert

208

View publication stats